The full dataset viewer is not available (click to read why). Only showing a preview of the rows.
The dataset generation failed
Error code: DatasetGenerationError Exception: CastError Message: Couldn't cast directory: string identifier: string ...1: int64 creator: string language: string title: string publication_date: int64 lang: string real_lang: string n: int64 rights: string file: string word_count: int64 text: string -- schema metadata -- pandas: '{"index_columns": [{"kind": "range", "name": null, "start": 0, "' + 1844 to {'identifier': Value(dtype='string', id=None), 'title': Value(dtype='string', id=None), 'publication_date': Value(dtype='int64', id=None), 'word_count': Value(dtype='int64', id=None), 'text': Value(dtype='string', id=None)} because column names don't match Traceback: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/src/services/worker/src/worker/job_runners/config/parquet_and_info.py", line 1492, in compute_config_parquet_and_info_response fill_builder_info(builder, hf_endpoint=hf_endpoint, hf_token=hf_token, validate=validate) File "/src/services/worker/src/worker/job_runners/config/parquet_and_info.py", line 683, in fill_builder_info ) = retry_validate_get_features_num_examples_size_and_compression_ratio( File "/src/services/worker/src/worker/job_runners/config/parquet_and_info.py", line 602, in retry_validate_get_features_num_examples_size_and_compression_ratio validate(pf) File "/src/services/worker/src/worker/job_runners/config/parquet_and_info.py", line 640, in validate raise TooBigRowGroupsError( worker.job_runners.config.parquet_and_info.TooBigRowGroupsError: Parquet file has too big row groups. First row group has 850328990 which exceeds the limit of 300000000 During handling of the above exception, another exception occurred: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/builder.py", line 1995, in _prepare_split_single for _, table in generator: File "/src/services/worker/src/worker/job_runners/config/parquet_and_info.py", line 797, in wrapped for item in generator(*args, **kwargs): File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/packaged_modules/parquet/parquet.py", line 97, in _generate_tables yield f"{file_idx}_{batch_idx}", self._cast_table(pa_table) File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/packaged_modules/parquet/parquet.py", line 75, in _cast_table pa_table = table_cast(pa_table, self.info.features.arrow_schema) File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/table.py", line 2302, in table_cast return cast_table_to_schema(table, schema) File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/table.py", line 2256, in cast_table_to_schema raise CastError( datasets.table.CastError: Couldn't cast directory: string identifier: string ...1: int64 creator: string language: string title: string publication_date: int64 lang: string real_lang: string n: int64 rights: string file: string word_count: int64 text: string -- schema metadata -- pandas: '{"index_columns": [{"kind": "range", "name": null, "start": 0, "' + 1844 to {'identifier': Value(dtype='string', id=None), 'title': Value(dtype='string', id=None), 'publication_date': Value(dtype='int64', id=None), 'word_count': Value(dtype='int64', id=None), 'text': Value(dtype='string', id=None)} because column names don't match The above exception was the direct cause of the following exception: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/src/services/worker/src/worker/job_runners/config/parquet_and_info.py", line 1505, in compute_config_parquet_and_info_response parquet_operations, partial, estimated_dataset_info = stream_convert_to_parquet( File "/src/services/worker/src/worker/job_runners/config/parquet_and_info.py", line 1099, in stream_convert_to_parquet builder._prepare_split( File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/builder.py", line 1882, in _prepare_split for job_id, done, content in self._prepare_split_single( File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/builder.py", line 2038, in _prepare_split_single raise DatasetGenerationError("An error occurred while generating the dataset") from e datasets.exceptions.DatasetGenerationError: An error occurred while generating the dataset
Need help to make the dataset viewer work? Make sure to review how to configure the dataset viewer, and open a discussion for direct support.
identifier
string | title
string | publication_date
int64 | word_count
int64 | text
string |
---|---|---|---|---|
cihm_08193 | Baptism versus rantism [microform] : baptism as a New Testament ordinance proved to be a covering of the person with water, and rantism, sprinkling -not a New Testament ordinance : a reply to the misstatements and fallacies of Rev. W.A. McKay, B.A. | 1,880 | 18,428 | ,n<4u
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
1.0
I.I
2.0
1.8
1.25
1.4 1
^ 1
1.6
^
6"
►
Va
^
/a
VI
^.
el
^^ .v^
<p
'/a
y
//a
Photographic
Sciences
Corporation
s.
ip
i\
o
^^
^\
fc
6^
<>
^<h'-
23 WEST MAIN STREET
WEBSTER, NY. 14580
(716) 872-4503
CIHM/ICMH
Microfiche
Series.
CiHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.
Canadian Institute/ for Historical Microraproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques
1980
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques
The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.
I / I Coloured covers/
D
D
D
□
D
D
D
0
□
D
Couverture de couleur
Covers damaged/
Couverture endommagee
Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul6e
Cover title missing/
Le titre de couverture manc,je
Coloured maps/
Cartes g^ographiques en couleur
Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)
Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur
Bound with other material/
Reli6 avec d'autres documents
Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/
La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge intdrieure
Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes
lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 film^es.
Addiiional comments:/
Commentaires suppl^mentaires;
L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage
sont indiqu^s ci-dessous.
□ Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur
□ Pages damaged/
Pages endommag^es
I I Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaur6es et/ou pellicul^es
Pages discoloured, stained or foxei
Pages d^colordes, tachet6es ou piqu^es
Pages detached/
Pages detachees
Shuwthroughy
Transparence
Quality of prir
Quality in^gale de I'impression
ides supplementary materic
prend du mat6riel supplementaire
edition available/
Seule Edition disponible
I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
I I Pages detached/
I I Showthrough/
I I Quality of print varies/
□ Includes supplementary material/
Comi
I I Only edition available/
n
Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
ODScurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6t6 film^es & nouveau de facon d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.
This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/
Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous.
10X 14X 18X 22X
V
12X
16X
20X
26X
24X
28X
30X
^—■^^
n
32X
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:
Izaak Walton Klllam Memorial Library
Dalhousie University
L'exemplaire i\\vn6 fut reproduit grdce d la
g6n6rosit6 de:
Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Library
Dalhousie University
The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.
Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and endmg on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.
The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol — »> (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.
Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:
Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film*, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.
Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film^s en commenpant par la
premidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.
Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole — *► signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbole V signifie "FIN".
Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
filmds d des taux de reduction diff^rents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour §tre
reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film6 d partir
de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes SL-Vants
illustrent la m^thode.
1
2
3
1 2 3
4 5 6
^/^V7c?-^ I??
fT» l^nantitieift Of TH^nty or more a Di«K«oant of !iO per eent.
BAPTISMTereusRANTISM
'* ltfi|»tlHanofi-><% ' Olpi>ln«' lmm«^rHi«n.'>
" ltfiiitiMiii(«0'-'% Mifrliikllnir/*
Robinson's Greek Lexicon of N T. pAgei iiy Hml 6+;
BAPTISM AS A M IfSIAilil OHDINANCE
A COVERING OF THE PERSON WITH WATER,
ANn
TO THE mtsvStatrmv;nts and fallaoiks
REV W A MoKAY, B A.,
nv
; RKV CALVIN OOODSPEED. M.A.,
■' He ihu! »v iii>.t ill U\< own cauvcj settmeth in^t, ^
bw ill- iieijj;iil>o( ooiiieth and KCRivhetl) him Tr'H' -f^ii-7
WOOOfiTOCK:
PRINTED AT THE ' TIMRS" HOOK AND /OH PUrNTINfi OKprCFi.
j88o.
M Postate Free ea Receiit of Frite t? Jaies Efamlii, WoolM.
Tr'j-r.-sT
/
'■■ \B^:OsU'Sf>'%mMtM ^ '
~i)
JOHN JAMES STEWART
COLLECTION
'' J A
■'f
* - , ■■■ '-
Immersion proved to he not the only mode
of Baptism, and not a Scriptural mode at
all, htit an Ini;ention of the Church of
Ront^^. -This is the title of a Pamphlet of
46 pages by Rev. W. A. Mackay of
Woodstock, Ont., published by C. B.
Robinson, Toronto. Price 10 cents.-: — A
trenchant and clever essay.
BAPTISM versus RANTISM
m
nM
Z!>^
Bu|)tiNiii09— A *DIpplns' Immersion."
RnntlstmoH— A MprinKlInic''
Robinson's Greek Lexicon of N. T. pages 119 and 64:
BAPTISM AS A M TFSTAiNI OSOINANCE
PROVKD TO BE
A COVERINe OF THE PERSON WITH f ATEE.
AND
TO THE MISSTATEMENTS AND FALLACIES
OF
• KEY. W. A. McKAY, B.A.,
BY
REV CALVIN GOODSPEED, M.A.
" He that is first in his own cau.ie seemeth just,
hut his neighbor cometh and searcheth him. — Prov. iR:i7<
WOODSTOCK :
PRINTKlf Ai- IHE "TIMES" I'.OOK AND JOB IMilNTING OFFICE.
i38o.
Jul ,'l^^'^u<^ ^ mT
f f
-»»(
y ^:{
"13, ^ ,. ^. ,
» ' f V ^ ft
^O,^;'
<i^ti i
-f-r'-r>" T.-
r:'.^^??-'
i ♦
v^' *'.
I V'- . ,■/' -..I
' //; *-;.• ':*« ■•rri , ,
i " ■
<f^
^'^ ^' ,« . ; (!
-•^' '>I^ A
■-* '■ « til
p I ,-t
KU:
I i '^O ''\ ^y- T"' * .
./ ■Ti r
'1
r'S^*
ij
■^{
l*S If^ r,*
4^
— -.' 'f'oH.t ?o
A. aa>
t '. t-x * i;«fftv:v
A PAMPHLET on Baptism by the Rev, W. A. McKay, B.A., of
Woodstock, has been put into my hands. At the request of quite
a number of friends I propose to give it a review, not because I
think it of any Hcholarly worth, but because it is fitted to impose
on the ignorant and careless and because, also, a reply to it will
be an answer to productions of a similar kmd which are being
freely circulated. I regret exceedingly that the author of this
pamphlet, for whom I have had a high regard, has been betrayed
into a bitterness of style which is sadly out of keeping with the
sacred work of defending or advancing the truth. To seek to
carry a point by appeals to prejudice is miserable work, with
which I propose to have nothing to do. Neither haye I any ill
words to speak of the denomination to which the author belongs,
and which in his harsh spirit, I should hope he misrepresents.
Their loyalty to what they believe to be true I respect, while com-
j elled to ihink them in error on some points. I recognize, also,
in all denominations true and noble men, with the friendship of
some of whom I am honored. Any barrier to the fullest com-
munion with them gives me pain and the time when the last one
is removed by the universal prevalence of the whole truth, is
contemplated with the keenest pleasure. But while this is true,
and 1 believe that Baptists generally share with me in this feel-
ing, we think ourselves compelled to act upon a principle well
expressed in thif« pamphlet, that " liberality to error is treason to
the truth." I shall therefore show no mercy on fallacies, or misre-
presentations, or boastful pretensions ff superiority in scholarship
to the great men of the past and present. If this should give
an air of severity to some parts of the discussion I cannot help it.
Before proceeding to our chief work a brief reference is
required to some general insinuations against our people as a
body.
Is it fair to judge of all Baptists by a few harsh expressions
culled here and there from two of their writers? This is a good
way to work up prejudice, but it is not the way to deal justly.
It will be the strangest news to most, and to none more than to
Presbyterian ministers themselves, that they are silent about
Baptisn: out of forbearance to Baptist errors. We have always
thought them the last men to forbear to attack any error, much
less what they may esteem Baptist errors Neither has it ever
come to our ears that Baptists, of all men, have resorted to the
snivelling of conscious weakness when attacked, by raising the cry
of " persecution," " disturbers of the peace," &c. 1 have always
found them standing up fearlensly against all comers, while they
use their God- given weapons right manfully. If Baptists so
»' constantly apply the most insulting language to the conscien-
tious convictions and practices of others " they are guilty of a
2reat rudeness, which is very common in all denominations ; but
it is rather hard to be taken to task by the author of a pamphlet
which makes this one of its staples, witness his references to
immersion, as a " course of water," as " soaking sin out and grace
in," his pleasantry over the case of re-baptism wherein his
description is a caricature of the facts, and the gusto with which
he uses the expressions " watery grave, ' " swollen flood."
'' liquid tomb," &c., &c., &c. We might add that his merriment
over the scrupulousness of Baptists in rendering an exact obedi-
ence to what they believe to be the divine instructions, is more
sad than seemly, in one who professes to be himself a servant of
Christ. Whatever others may think, and whatever others may
practice, we believe that such passages as *' we should obey God
rather than men," and " he that loveth father and mother more
than me is not worthy of me," do teach that, in the case of con-
sci
frc
ag<
se^
vi(
lii
on]
sol
sU
of I
int
bel
fiWl
dc
reference ia
>eopJe as a
j>
scientious conviolion, the higher authority of God does absolve us
from the lower authority of parents when the latter is arrayed
against the former. We are surprised that this pamphlet should
seek to teach that parents have the right to crush down the con-
victions of their children by forcing them to keep within the
limits of a hereditary belief. Here is an introduction to a fierce
onslaught upon Baptist unchariiablenean, '' No wonder that with
so much indifference on our part and so much misrepresentation,
slander, and unscrupulous zeal on the part of immersionists,
many of our young people should become the unconscious dupes
of Baptist proselytizers who are ever eager to take advantage of
innocent icnorance." The nearlv 3,000,000 Baptist church mem*
bers of America should surely feel abashed before the honied
sweetness of the author of this pamphlet! If he can afford to
make such general charges we certainly can afford to have him
do so.
This pamphlet asserts that nine-tenths of Christendom are
against the immersion views of the Baptists. How much truth
is there in this oft-repeated statement? Even the author of this
production must know that the Greek church, number'ng
70,000,000, always has and does still, practice immorsion. The
Homan Catholic church, while it practices sprinkling, assc i'ts that
immersion was the original baptism and bases sprinkling upon
the authority of the church. So they are with us in the view
that baptism was originally an immersion, and this church num.
bers 150,000,000. There are also as many, at least, as 6,000,000
Baptist adherents. These sum up 220,000,000. Even if we
should include the Episcopalians, who, by their liturgy, declare
that pouring and sprinkling are allowable only when the child is
unable to be immersed, as against our view, there are only about
70,000,000, all told, who profess to believe that sprinkling or
pour was never a form of baptism originally. So much for this
statement.
6
.1!
This pamphlet states that the Baptist theory casts out as
heathen men and publicans all who have not been immersed,
and treats all such as aliens from the commonwealth of Israel
and hands them over to the •' uncovenanted mercies of God.'
So far as the last expression 's concerned the Presbyterian and
other churches may maintain that there is no covenant mercy to
any but the baptized, but we are happy to state that Baptists
have ever rejected such an idea with abhorrence. If he were not
80 desirious of arousing prejudice against the author he would
not have used such words as the fore-going and others of a similar
bitter character, against strict communion ; for he must know
that Presbyterians are as strict as we, admitting none to the
Supper but such as they deem baptized. The following quotation
from R. Hall will show that the stinging words which Mr. McKay
quotes as referring to us alone, were meant for oth^r denomina-
tions likewise. "They," (Baptists), says Mr. H., '' act precisely
on the same principle with .all other Christians, who assume it for
granted that baptism is an essential preliminary to the reception
of the Sacrament. • • * The recollection of this
may suffice to rebut the ridicule and" silence the clamoiir of those
who condemn Baptists for a proceoding which, were they but to
change their opinion on the subject of baptism, their own princi-
ples would compel them to adopt." Vol. Ill, p. 349,350. Candid
and manly Presbyterians like Dr. Patton and Dr. J. X. Hall are
admitting this, and are urging that Baptists, instead of being held
up to orprobrium because of their strict communion, deserve the
admiration of their brethren for consistent adherence to a prin-
ciple which is common to Presbyterians and them. But these are
broad souled magnanimous men. We quote Dr. Hall's words,
"There is a tendency to heap censure on the Baptists in this
country because of the views generally held and acted upon
regarding the Lord's Supper. Restricted communion is being
assailed by many in the interests of catholicity. It is a course of
val|
thi
br(
Ubj
ma|
br(
arei
as
1|
ihi
thi
asks out as
1 immersed,
kh of Israel
es of God.'
yterian and
It morcy to
It Baptists
e were not
'le woul.j
>f a similar
>ust know
"G to the
quotation
r. McKay
enomina-
preoisely
me it for
pception
of this
of those
y hut to
prinoi-
Candid
all are
igheld
ve the
* prin-
>se are
^ords,
1 this
upon
beinff
'se of
doubtful catholicity to raise a popular outcry a^'ainst a most
valuable body of people who honestly d«?fend and consistently go
through with what they deem an important principle.''
*' Our love for the brethren should surely include the Baptist
brethren. And it is doubtful if. considering the len/^ths to which
liberal ideas have been carried in this country, there be not some
gain to the community as a whole, from a large denomination
making a stand at a particular point, and reminding their
brethren that there are church matters which we are not bound?
are not even at liberty to settle according to the popular demand'
as we would settle the route of a railroad."
In proceeding with the chief part of our work we may not follovr
the^order ofH,heJpamphlet which we review, but we shall notice all
that is worth the trouble, considerable, peihaps, that is not.
And first let us glance at one or two positions taken by our
opponents. The most argue that baptism can be performed
either by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. Such an idea
appears to me unthinkable. This ordinance is to symbolize a
definite thing — regeneration, as admitted by Mr. McK; by whicft
old things paws away and all things become new — and to serve a
derinite purpose. Now can it be conceived, by any effort of
imagination, that such dissimilar acts as these can possibly repro
sent with equal clearness this change, or equally serve any
definite and single purpose. Neither can it be supposed that the
All-wise would enjoin or permit any oth r than the most adequate
symbol to show forth this change, muchless that he would permit
two or three, some less and some more adequate. In all the
Bible there can be found no such instance. In every case (Jod
enjoins the one symbol which seems best to hirj and then woe be
to the man who through rashness or self sufficiency tampers with
it. Neither can 1 suppose that, when God commands us to
observe one symbol, he will permit us to substitute for it somo-
thing else which we deem more convenient or suitable. It is
self-evident that no change can be made in a symbolic ordinance
without injuring its expressiveness and neutralizing to some
extent the divine purpose in it. So baptism must be one thing,
not one of two or many. If it is immersion it is not sprinkling.
If it may be sprinkling it cannot be immersion.
The first help in discovering what baptism is, is the meaning
of
THE GREEK WORD BAPTIZO,
which is used in the New Testament to enjoin and describe it. It
will save confusion if we remember that we have to do with its
literal meaning, since Christian baptism is a literal material act.
With its figurative meanings we have nothing directly to do. Let
us examine this pamphlet then, on this point. The author's first
appeal is to
, THE TESTIMONY OF THE LEXICOGRAPHERS.
f. : '
He asserts that they are " all arrayed against the Baptist posi-
tion,"' for proof he makes this declaration, " Even the great
Baptist controversialist \^Car3on) acknowledges this ; for having
said that the word baptize always signifies to dip, he adds, " As I
have all the Lexicographers and Commentators against me.'' As
these words of Dr. Carson have often been wrested from their
connection and used in the most unscrupulous way, explanation is
needed. The facts are these, Dr. Carson, in the connection in
which these words stand, expressly says that " there is the most
complete harmony among them (Lexicographers) in representing
dip as the primary meaning of bapto and baptizo, and adds " Ac-
cordingly Baptist writers have always appealed with the greatest
confidence to the Lexicons even of Pedobaptisl; writers. On the
contrary, their opponents often take refuge in a supposed sacred or
spiritual use, that they may be screened from the fire of the
Lexicons." Still further, he declares, "Nor is it with real sec*
ondarl
taken!
what
he dii
can H£
this dl
»» Eacj
other
Carsoi
^c.bj
where
hapth
stanc
tweer
ingof
Now i
the 01
statei
accort
welco
niersi
feide,
Comr
ranee
to sh
to th
then
is tri
wast
men
eics,
cone
bett
Lex
ordinance
to some
one thing,
Jpiinkling.
© meaning
ribe it. It
o with its
terial act.
' do. Let
hor's first
)ti8t posi-
he great
>r having
ds, " As 1
aie. ' As
om their
nation is
Jction in
^he most
esenting
Ids "Ac-
greatest
On the
acred or
? of the
eal sec-
-9
ondary meanings that they (Lexicographers) are likely to be mis-
taken, their peculiar error is in giving, as secondary meanings
what are not probably meanings at all." To illustrate wherein
he differs from the Lexicographers, he uses this illustration. We
can say dip the bread in wine, or moisten the bread in wine, yet
this does not import that dip means to moisten or moisten to dip,
'' Each of the words has its own peculiar meaning which the
other does not posses." The exact point, then, at issue between
Carson and the Lexicographers is this, because an object is washed
Sec. by dipping in water, they give wash as a meaning of bapiizo
whereas Carson contends that wash is not a meaning of the word
bapiizo, but only the result of its action under certain circum-
stances. About the act in baptism there is no controversy be-
tween them and Carson ; for although they giye wash as a mean-
ing of bapiizo, it is always a wasbmg by an immersion in water.
Now as the act of baptism is all that concerns us in reference to
the ordinance of baptism, we see how much truth there is in the
statement that Lexicographers are against the Baptist position
according to Carson. Under these circumstances, Mr. McKay is
welcome to the triumph with wiiich he exclaims, " On the im-
mersionist side of this question we have Dr. Carson, on the other
feide, even as acknowledged, we have all the Lexicographers and
Commentators of the world ;" for if his elation is not due to igno-
rance and carelessness, it arises from what is worse. His attempt
to show that the Lexicographers are against us by direct reference
to them is equally fitted to mislead. He states that certain of
them give to bapiizo three meanings dip, wash and cleanse, which
is true of some ofthem, although not of all. He then declares, since
washing and cleansing may be done in other ways then by im-
mersing an object in the cleansing element, baptism, in the clas-
sics, is not alway.^ an immersion. The false impression which the
concealed sophistry of this statement is liable to make cannot be
better corrected than by quoting the definitions of two of the
Lexicographers to whom he refers.
it!
10
i^chlemner '^ bapHzo/' Properly to immerse and dip in, to
iijmerse in water, from bapio : and it answers to the Hebrew
/aZ/ttZ, 2 Kings 5:14. Also, because not vnjrequenfh/, something is
wont to be Immersed and dipped into water that it might be washed,
hence it denotes to perform ablution, to wash o/f, to cleanse in water.
Scapula, " baptizo. To dip, plunge into, plu.ige under, to
overwhelm in wrter, wash off', cleanse, as when we immerse anythinf/
in water for the sake of coloring or washing ity
Also, Alstedius. To immerse, and not to wash excejit by
consequence.
The Lexicographers then, say that baptizo means to wasli, only
in so far as tne washing is done by immersion. Mr. McKay
quietly assumes, because I aptism is sometimes a wasliing, that
washing is always a baptism, however done. Mis reasoning, put
into a syllogism, is ; to bnptize is to wash, to pour is to wash,
therefore baptism i a pouring- as transparent a fallacy as can be,
as can be seen by the following : To burn is to destroy, to drown
is to destroy, therefore to burn is to drown, or perhaps this, Mr.
McKay is an animal, ^n ass is an animal, therefore. * * Until
he tin«]s a case where any washing is callec" a baptism.pxcept a
washing by immersing the ol^ject washed, he must drop this
.point, or a<^cept the consequences of his own metliods ot reasoii
ing. As Pedo Baptist scliolai's have been seeking for years to
lind any jiassage where anytliing bui an immersion is termed a
baptism, and have failed, we do not anticipate that he will
succeed, even though he thinks that they know little, about
(lipping, compared witli himself
But, the reader may reply, is it not asserted in this pamphlet
that in Greek writings we have the following expressions :
*' Baptizing — J, the grass with dew "' — 2, " a garment with needle-
work ' — 3, " a wall with arrows ' — 4, ''the head with perfume "' —
.'), " the sea with the blood of a mouse " — G, " a rock with the
blood of a stag '— 7, ** plants by pouring ,or sprinkling water on
tlip in, to
he Hebrew
'omething is
t be washe.d,
se in water.
un<ler, to
sc. anythiiKf
except hy
wash, only
>. Mo Kay
iiinir, that
onin^', put
i to wash,
as can be,
» to drown
this, Mr.
Until
pxcept a
rop this
reasoi. j
ears to
ernied a
he will
e about
iiiiphlet
issions :
needle-
irne '' —
ith the
atRr on
« 11
them '"—8, "an altar by pouring water upon if— 9, "a man
(Nebuchadnezzar) with the dew of heaven "—10, **the sea shore
by the advancing tide" — 1 1, " the ashes of purification by water
poured upon them "' — 12, " persons while reclining on their
couch "—13, " with tears ? '
On this list purporting to give instances of the use of baptizo,
the only word used to describe the rite of baptism, we remark,
J, As the author has not reterred us to the works where these
passages occur, we cannot identify them all. 2, Ot the passages
we can identify, 2, 5 and 9, Have hajtto a word never used to de-
scribe baptism and not baptizo, the word whose usage Mr.
McEjiy purports to givs in this list ! ! 3, So far as I can learn,
only 8, 10, 11.12 and 13 contain baptizo and hence these only can
be used honestly to prove his point. 4, On these I remark, No.
8 refers to the flooding of the wood on the altar by command of
Elijah ! Kings 18 : 33 — and expresses strongly Origen's idea of the
completeness of the deluging — as though it had been immersed^
Is not the sea shore buried beneath the flowing tide — and so
immersed ? The case of the baptism of the ashes of purification
is not described as by pouring water upon them, but by putting
them into the water. Jos. Antiqu. IV, 4:() The baptism of persons
while reclining on a couch, refers to the laving of the hands It
was a baptism ol the hanils only. See Clement of Alex. Stromat,
Lib. 4 How much the baptism of tears helps sprinkling may be
learned from the following quotation, from Gr'»g. Nazienzen, ''Yea,
1 know a tilth baptism — that of tears ; but it is still more difficult,
because it is necessary to wet one's couch every night with tears."
But he adds again, *' How many tears can equal the flood oftlie
baptismal bath.''' Oratio. 39,7 and 00,9. So much for these
passages. 5, On the remaining passages which have not been
identified, we remark, Dr. Dale from whose works he purports
to quote them, states of Dr. Conanl's Baptizeins,(see Classic Bap.
p. 02,) that it is an "accurate exiiibition of all passages in which
m
^ I
1
12 0
baptizo is found." These passages are not in Dr. Conant's work
and so cannot bo in Dr. Dale's, who admits that there are none
beside. How can we explain this. Probably thus, that in these
remaining cases, just as in Nos. 2, 5, 9, Mr. McKay gives us passages
which have bapio, and not baptizo, while he expressly declares that
these are instances of the use of baptko. If he has done this
ignorantly, he had better abate from his high assumption ot
superiority to Pedo-Baptist scholars whose reputation is world
wide. If he has done it wilfully in order to carry a point which
4ie could not carry otherwise, then I had sooner not characterize
the act, on the part of one who is avowedly seeking to advance
the truth. Yet this is rot the first time that such a deed has
been done.
Is it necessary to follow him as he tries to make it appear that
baptizo cannot always mean to immerse, because Dr. Conant,
even, takes seven words to express its meaning m different cases
of its use ? Has he ever beard of synonymous words ? Had he
given the words used by Dr. Conant, viz : dip, immerse, immerge,
merge, submerge, plunge in, whelm and overwhelin, anv reader
would have seen that they all convey the one meaning of cover- 1
iug in an element, which is all that Baptists now claim. Need I
add that the last two meanings are in cases of its fig'irative use,
as whelm in trouble, where the idea of direction of motion is
ruled out. Mr McKay accepts the statement of Mr. Gallaher,
that excellent classical scholar ; that " in every instance " quoted
by Dr. Conant, " The baptizing element or instrumentality is
moved and put upon the person or thing baptized, never is the
person put into the element.'' The " classical scholarship 'of
both Mr. Gallaher and his endorser can be seen from the following
cases, two out of a score or two of similar instances cited by
Dr. Conant, No. 16 : " Continually pressing down and immersing
him while swimming;" No 17, "Being baptized by the Gauls in
a swimming bath he dies.' But why proceed further ? Even Dr.
Jul
onant's work
lere are none
that in these
s us passages
declares that
is clone this
sumption ot
on is world
point which
characterize
; to advance
a deed has
appear that
Br. Con ant,
Perent cases
1? Had he
3, immerse,
finv reader
of cover-
Need I
rative use,
motion is
Gallaher,
*" quoted
ntality is f
ver is the
rship ' of
following
cited by
amersing
Oauls in
Even Dr.
13
Dale himself, who is the latest and most voluminous writer on
the Pedo baptist side, staters that " an object baptized is com-
pletely invested by the baptizing element," Classic Bap. p. 129.
Dr Stuart, the great Andover professor, after an elaborate
treatment of the subject, says, "Baptism" p. 51, Baptizo means
to dip, plunge, or immerse into any liquid. All Lexicographers
and critics of any note are agreed m this."
John Calvin declares, " The word baptize means to immerse."
Just. 4: 15, 19. And so we might quote from scores.
I may say here I am not concerned to defend Dr. Carson in his
idea that in baptism the object is always put Into the element. It
is enough for us that the object is always buried in or by the
element. Nor do Baptists hold that baptizo means both to put
into and to take out of the baptizing element. They claim that
it requires an immersion, not an emersion as well, and it is in
this .sense that dip is used by Dr. Carson, although it may popu-
larly have another meaning. The word baptizo will compel us to
bury the candidate for baptism in water, while it is left to common
sense, the prepositions and the descriptions of the recorded
baptisms to take him out again.
Thus we have followed this pamphlet, while it has sought to
prove even a single instance of baptism, other than by immersion
either on the authority of a lexicon or by appeal to an author,
and the author lias failed, although to one who was unable to
follow his sleight of hand he may appear to succeed. And he
could but fail when such men as C'>nant, Dale, Stuart,
Wilson, &c., with their vast learning and research nad not
succeeded. But even though one or two instances of sprinkling
had been found out of hundreds of the meaning to immerse,
unless baptism may b^ in more forms than one, it will undoubt-
edly be according to the general usage of the word.
Mr. McKay, finally, shields himself behind a supposed sacred
use " to screen himself from the hre of the lexicons."
But this is in vain.
14
^ No word takes on a new meaning in the Bible to express a
religious idea unless there is no word already in common use in
the language to express that meaning. This is so in accord with
fact and common sense that it needs no proof. Why make one
word mean two things in order to have two words to express the
same thing ? Were there not words in the language to express
every meaning which men have ever supposQ^ baptism to signify?
If it was a sprinkling rantizo wan ready for use, which never had
any other meaning. Why then give a word which never meant
anything but immerse the meaning sprinkle, and ignore the word
which the people ever knew to mean sprinkle ? And so of pour
and purify. There were tie words C/ieo. Kafharize, which ex-
pressed these ideas. Why then change the meaning of baptizo
into a signification it never had, thus confusing the people. an<l
leading to misapprehension, while these words stood rea<ly ? The
figment of a sacred use of baptizo meaning to sprinkle, &c , is but
the desperate clinging of a drowning cause to a straw. If the
word baptizo used to enjoin and describe the ordinance meant,
in the language used by the people, to immerse, as we have iound
that it did, then, common sense would say that they were
immersed when baptized.
But we have subsidiary evidence, of the strongest kind, in the
testimony of
1
of I
llil
Cb
of I
spl
iiei
.^^.j CHURCH HISTORY.
Let me^ere firs* dispose of the alleged discovery of Mr. McKay
that immersion is an offspring of the church of Rome,— discovery
1 say, for of all the church historians who have ever written, and
many of them cherished anything but the kindliest feelings
toward Baptists, no one has ever made such a statement. Many
men too have written against our view of baptism, but no one, so
lar as 1 know has had the hardihood to make such an absurvl
assertion
express a
on use in
50 rd with
luike ono
5i'e88 the
express
si<jni fy?
iver had
r meant
he word
' of pour
lich ex-
baptizo
3le. and
y ? 'i'lie
, is but
If the
meant,
' iound
were
in the
cKay
3 very
, and
lings
Tanv
e, so
surd
• 'lo
<Jne fact only needle mentioned to make its absurdity patent.
1 give it in the words of Dr. Wall, the groat PedoBaptist historian
of infant baptism, so that it may not be suspected. lie says
History Infant Baptism Vol. II, p. 414. "All those nations of
Christians that do now, or formerly diil, submit to the authority
of the Bishop of IJomo, do ordinarily baptize their infants by
sprinkling or pouring. But all other Christians in the world, vfhM,
never owned the Pope's usurped power, do, and ever did, dip their
infants m the ordinary use." This fact thus stated can be ques-
tioned only by such as are too ignorant to know better. Well
then, does it appear conceivable that immersion is from Rome,
when Home and those who have been subject to Home are the
very ones, and the only ones, who have rejected it, ^hde ail those
who have never submitted to her, have never practiced it, and
they only have always done so
We will deal with his alleged proof, after we have stated the
facts. They are these :
In the Epistle of Barnabas, attributed by many to the com-
panion of Paul, and so ancient that it was esteemed canonical by
some in the earliest tim*^?, and included in some of the earliest
MSS of tlie New Testament, we Hnd these references to
ba[)tism : —
" Blessed are t loy who, plaoing their trust in the cross, have
(/one down into the water " anl '• We desciud into the water full of
sins, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, char, XI. Hermes,
writing about A.D. 95, prior to John's tleath, perhaps, describes
the Apostles as having gone ^^ da^ into the wafer''' with those
they baptized and " come up ai/aiii.' — Shepherd.
Justin Martyr, who wrote about A.D. 140, speaks of the
baptized as " washed " in the name of the Trinity, and as obtain
ing forgiveness of sins " in the watcr^ Apology 79, 85, 86, and
again in bis Dialogue with a Jew, chap, xiv, he exclaims, " For
what is t'le benefit of that baptism which makes bright thejiesh
16
and body only? Bo baptizerl Cs to the*oul from anger, «tc."
Tertullian, A.D. 204. The candidate is let down into the
water, and with a few words said, i.s dipped," De Bapt. ch. 2, with
several other passages to the same effect.
Hippolytus, A.D. 225, speaking of our Lord's baptism, says,
*' How was the boundless river which makes glad the city of God,
iHtht/ied in a little water ; the incomprehensible fountain that sends
forth life to all men, and has no end, covered by scanty and iran-
sftory waiersy Discourse on Theophany, II.
TMre is as yet not the remotest hint of sprinkling or pouring as
baptism. But it was about to appear. The idea began to prevail
that no one could be sayed unless baptized. Hence when men
were threatened with death they sought baptism, fearing lest
they should be lost if they died without it. But as many of
them were too ill to be immersed, water was poured or sprinkled
upon them as a substitute.
The first recorded instance of such a baptism is that of
iSovaiian, A.D. 200. The following facts about this case speak
volumes: —
1, Eusebius who wrote a ciiurch history less than a century
after quotes from a letter of Cornelius, a bishop contimporary
with Novatian, the following words : " He (Novaliau; fell into a
grievous distemper and it beinji supposed tliat he would die
immediately he received baptism, being besprinkled with water
on tne bed nrhereon he lay, if that can be termed baptism. Eccles
Hist. B 6, ch XLIII
2, One Magnus enquires oLCyprian who lived at the time and
was the great leader of the X. African church " lohether they ivho
are baptized in bed, as Novatian was, must be rebaptized if they
recover.'^ Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. II p. 387.
3, Cyprian in his reply, wiih gt-eat diffidence, replies : " In the
sacrament of salvation (baptism), where necessity compels, and Go I
gives permission, the divine thing though outwardly abridged
besi
lea^
perl
;jo,]
spri
mo<J
not]
imi
anger, «S:r."
^n into the
• ch. 2, with
5tism, says,
JityofGofi,
that sends
Uj and trail-
])oiirinff (IS
1 to prevail
when men
'aring lest
3 many of
sprinkled
is that of
ase speak
a century
imporary
ell into a
^ouM die
ith water
Eccles
iime and
^hei/ IV ho
i if then
"In the
md God
ihvidged
17
I bestows all that it implies on the faithful.'' Neander ch., Hist.
I, p. 310.
4, Persons who were thus sprinkled upon their bed partly, at
least from the supposed inadequacy of such baptism, were not
permitted to hold any office in the church. Kurtz ch., Hist. I,
;jO,1 and 45,2.
The Edinburg Encyclopedia gives the further history of
sprinkling as follows: '' The first law to sanction aspersion as a'
mode of baptism was by Pope Stephen, II, A.D. 753. But it was
not till the year 1311 that a council held at Ravenna declared
immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent, &c,"
The reader can now iudge whether it is immersion which is the
offspnng of Rome, and associated with baptismal regeneration. 1
may add that not a tithe of the evidence for immersion from the
Fathers has been presented, as there are scores of references to
baptism as such in those who wrote in the first four centuries
while there has not been produced a single undoubted reference,
to sprinkling from any of them. It is no wonder then that all
church historians that have ever expressed themselves on the
subject, Pedo-Baptists though they all are, unanimously declare
that the original baptism was by immersion. Let us quote from
a few of ihem. Dean Stanley, one of the first scholars of the age,
Art on Baptism " For the first thirteen centuries the almost
unanimous practice of Baptism was that of which we read in the
New Testament, and which is the very meaning of the word
'• baptize '* — that those who were baptized were plunged sub-
merged, immersed into the water. • • • • Baptism by
sprinkling was rejected by the whole ancient church (except in
the rare cases of death beds or extreme necessity) as no baptism
at all."
P. Schaff, probably the greatest living Presbyterian scholar,
editor of Lan^je's commentary «&c., in his History of the Apostolic
Church, p. 568.savs : —
f
^
18
'• Finally, as to the outward mode of administering this ordi-
uance, immersion and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the
original normal form, This is shown by the very meaning of the
*ireek words Baptizo, Baptisma, Baptisnio;, used to designate the
rite. Then agam by the analogy of (he baptism of John, which
was performed in the Jordan (en) Matt. 3:f , comp IG, also eis ton
Jordanen, Mark. 1:9.) Furthermore by the New Testament com
parisons of baptism with the passage through the Red Sea (1 Cor^
10:2) with the flood (1 Pet. 3:21; with a bath, Eph. 5:26, Tit. 3:.').
with a burial and resurrection, Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12.
Finally by the general usage of ecclesiastical antiquity, (as it
is to this day in the Oriental and also the GraecoRussian Church)
pouring and sprinkling being substituted only in cases of urgent
necessity, such as sickness and approaching death.
Neander, the prince of church historians, says : —
•' In respect to the form of baptism, it was in conformity with
the original institution, and the orginal import of the symbol
performed by immersion. • • * It was only with the sick
when the exigency required it that any exception was made, and
in this case baptism was administered by sprinkling." C'h, Hist
J p, 310.
Giessler. Ch. Hist. 1, p 277, sec 71.
" The condition of catechumens continued several years; but
the catechumens often deferred even baptism as long as possible
on account of the remission of sins by which it was to be accom
panied. Hence it was often necessary to baptize tae sick, «/m!
for them the rife oj sprinkling was introduced.''''
In view of this, how pitiful is the puny attempt of this
pamphlet, or any other for thai matter, to obscure the plain facts
of history, and how proUigiously absurd ^is the swelling air of
superiority assumed by an unknown village preacher of Ontario'
when he patronizingly alludes to these and scores more of such
men of world wide celebrity for scholarship, as " knowing little
andl
the]
ba]
is c|
»g this ordi-
ionably the
tning of the
?8ignate the
^ohn, which
also eis (ou
iraent com
'Sea (I Cor,
26, Tit. ?,-.:>[
uity, (as it
in Church)
' o^ ur<'ent
mit}'- vvitli
le syiuhol
» the sick-
lade, atul
Ch. riist
?ar3,' but
possible
^ accom
3ick, and
of this
lin facts
? air of
Ontario'
of such
ig little
1»
and caring less about " dipping," because they are compelled by
the force of facts to concede that immersion was the original
baptism.
But Mr. McKay's attempt is worse than pitiful. Although it
is disagreeable work, some things must be exposed. He says,
' The very first distinct mention of dipping as a mode of bnptism
is by TertuUian, who lived about the beginning ot the third
century," (he was born the middle of the second, by the way).
Why clid he not add that sprinkling is not mentioned until a half
century later, and then it is to question it ? He seems to have
put it so purposely, to leave the impret jion that immersion was
an innovation, and sprinkling was of the higher antiquity. Again
the seeks to discredit dipping, because it was threefold until the
17th century. '• Those who did not dip three times did not dip
at all.'' Why did he not add also that, during the same time,
all who sprinkled, sprinkled three times also? Such a resort
to half trutlis which teAch a lie, is des[)icable, if it is through any
other cause tlian ignorance, and then it is blameworthy ; for no
one should make assertions when ignorant.
Again TertuUian is said to have inclut^ed "dipping ' among
he observances " based on tni lition " and destitute of scriptural
authority.'' He does no such thing, for these are his words in
hts treatise, *' Against Praxeas ch. 26, speaking of the Saviour's
command. Matt 2S:1'J he declares " And last of all, commanding
that they should immerse into the Father, and the Son, and the
Holy Spirit.'
As to his assumption, because immersion is mentioned in con-
nection with " Romish practices " b^U'ertullian, that therefore
mniersioM is Romish it is simply ridil^)us. 'TertuUian, mentions
the doctrine of the 'Trinity in connection with them also. Is it
also Romish ? Because there is some falsehood in a writing, does
it follow that it is all falsehood ? We may mention, also, that
TertuUian is likewise the first writer who distinctly refers to
infant baptism, and it is to condemn it. But enough.
20
Mr. McKay's attempt to cast the stigma of being Romish upon
immersion on such grounds, especially in view of the fact.-* about
the incoming and prevalence of sprinkling, is an outrage. Besides,
he is in a dilemma. He professes to believe that immersion is
unscriptural and Romish, and yet he has received a member mto
his church upon just such an unscriptural Romish rite, and. Pres-
byterian and all other churches receive the immersed, and seem
only too glad to get them. Many of the ministers of all otht;r
denominations will immerse candidates for baptism, if immersion
is insisted on. Why does Mr. McKay not enter upon a crusade
agamst such countenancing of what is Romish in his own churoli
and in his own practice? Why does he give all his attention to
us? Or does he think that by gaining a member to his church
from ours, there is a sufficient justification for countenancing
what is Romish, and violating principle and truth ? Consistency
IS a jewel.
We have found then thus far, that the word haptizo which is
used to describe the ordinance of baptism, has always meant to
immerse. AVhile this of itself affords the strongest evidence that
baptism was an immersion ; for our Saviour in using it to enjoin
the ordinance, would undoubtedly u.se it in the sense in which it
was universally accepted, we have in harmony with this idea, and
establishing it beyond question, the practice of the Church from
the earliest times — within half a century of the apostles them
selves. Lot us add to this the fact that when sprinkling was first
mentioned within a century and a half of the apostles, it is to
deny its validity as baptism except in cases of extreme necessity
and even then as renderij^fcthe candidate su*'ject to di-sabilities,
and where is there the i?ossibility of doubt that baptism was
originally an immersion ?
Those who nevertheless hold that baptism was by affusion will
have to make two astounding assumi)tions. Although there were
words in common use in the language to express sprinkle, pour,
; Romish upon
i« facU about
fige. Besides,
immersion ig
member into
e, and. Pres-
et and seem
of all other
r immersion
'n a crusade
own church
attention to
' bis church
ntenancinxr
/Onsistency
■'O which is
s meant to
dence that
^ to enjoin
n which it
' idea, and
urch from
les them
I was first
s, it is to
necessity
^abilities,
tism was
sion will
ere were
Jt'; pour,
21
wash, bathe, purify, ttc. and which had no other meaning, yet
our Lord chose a word which always meant to immerse, and
never to sprinkle «kc., to express the sprinkling ka , which these
other words always meant, rather than either of these words
themselves. The original baptism was a sprinkling and not an
immersion. Yet we never hear it referred to as a sprinkling but
always as an immersion from forty years after the apostles for
centuries, while this original baptism by sprinkling ha<l become
so forgotten bv the church within a century and a half of the
apostles, that when it began again to be practiced, its validity
was conceded only in cases of necessity where immersion could
not be practiced. Vrt some are prepared to go even this length,
rather than abandon a hereditary belief. What does the reader
iOnclu le to do?
We join issue with this pamphlet iinally, on the
TKACIIIN'O OF SCRIPTUKK
On the question'of the mode of baptism.
We shall Hrst follow hiui as he attempts to show that in
certain instances baptism was by sprinkling.
kaaman's skvknfold baptism, 2 KiNos, 5:10 — 14,
is not a sevenfold dipping as our Bible says but a 'venfold
sprinkling This is the way he makes this appear, '' How (was he
baptized) ? Certainly not by a physical washing in the river, but
by symbolic sprinkling ; for he did it according to the saying or
command of the man ot God And the man of God would com-
mand him to do what the law of God prescribeil. this was
sprinkling seven times; Lev. 14:7."
J^t us see. IfElisha would have commanded what the law
prescribed, it must have been that Naaman's was an instance of
the case for whom the ritual of Lev. 14 was provided ; for Elisha
had too much reverence for the law to prescribe its solemn cere-
m
I !
'1 '1
• I
22
monies for any tliun those for whom the ritual itself was given
But Nrtaaiati's was not an instance of such a case The ritual of
Lev. J 4 was for lepers already cured, to declare that they had
been healed. Lev. 14:3. Naaraan was still diseased and Elisha
enjoined whai was miraculously to cure him, 2 Kings .kIO, 11
So much for this assertion.
Again if Elisha commanded him Jo conform to, the ritual of
Lev. 14, he did so conform ; for he obeyed him But he did not
thus conform, even though he obeyed a command to wash, by
sprinkling himself. In Lev 14, there is to be an examination by
a priest, a bird killed, its blood mixed with water, wood and
scarlet an.l hyssop dipped therein, this mixture sprinkled upon
him by a priest, washing of clothes, shaving and hatlung, to be
followed by sacrihces, <fec,, for eight days. And yet, in order to
get m the sprinkling which is so <lesperately in need of help, men
would iDiikti it appear that if Xaamaii sprinkled //-//rt.>«'^{/' seven
times in Jordat) water and tiien pro(!e«(led on his w.ty. he went
through the whoUi long rituul oi' ibis ciiapter. But it uui?.t lie so :
for has not ■Iv. McK, himself usssuii'd us that he " knows what h»^
*.ays," having ''carefully examined every passage in the (Jld Tes-
tament and the New relating ti baptism." It would be most
lukind to question it when he takes the trouble to tell us so him-
belf Did he think that if lie let jjis work speak for him people
miyht doubt /
Following others, this pamphlet makes
on; l,Oi:i)'s BAPTISM
',! •.•^#•«.«J|.'
bis i;onsecijit!on u> the priesthood He ridicules the idea that
our ij.iril s hajitism \va,> us an example. " If Chrii.t v.as baptized
lis an example, why," !ie exjlaiins " Do not Baptists follow his
example and that in evfry point. ' Why are they not baptizeil
at 30? Wliy are they n<H circumcised ? Why do they not keep
the Jew sli Passovor and Sabbath. &:c ? What logic ! ! If Christ is
an el
in al|
his i
not
Chril
the
enjoi
USSU]
hooq
of wi
29:4,1
does!
?lf was given
The ritual of
fifit they had
I and Elisha
ngs '3:10,11.
he ritual of
t he did not
to wash, by
niination hv
» wood and
ikled upon
nng, to be
in order to
' help, men
I'-'elf .seven
»ij»t l>e so;
V8 what he
J Old Tes-
I'e rno.st
Js so him-
in people
<Jea tiiiit
i'aptized
)I]ow his
>apti2pd
iOt keep
^'iirist is
23
an example in one thing he must be in all then. But he was not
in all, according to Mr. McKay, therefore he was not in any, and
his reasoning leads to two opposite conclusions. But we need
not discuss the point whether his baptism was, in all respects,
Christian or not. We are concerned in this discussion only with
the mode ot baptism and all admit that its form was the same
enjoined upon believers generally. But how, even on the
assumption that his baptism was his consecration to the priest-
hood, does he gel in sprinkling? Knowing that there was no use
of water but as a washltuj in the consecration of the priests Ex.
29:4, which was too near an immersion to serve his purpose, what
does he do but declare that our Lord was consecrated to the
priesthood by the ritual for the consecration of the Levites^ Num.
S:7, and so had the water of purifyin^^ sprinkled upon him In
the name ot all that is sacred I protest, against such handling of
the word of God. But let us sift this matter further. Di 1 it ever
occur tD those who thus seek to pervert our Lord's baptism
that he did not belong to the tribe of Levi, but to that of Judah,
'•of which tribe Moses spake nolhin;: concerning priesthood,"'
Ileb. 7:14? But some would retort, but he was a priest after
the order of Melchisedick. This i.-, true, but it is argued in Heb.
7 that the Mosaic priesthood and that of Melchisedec are so
completely distinguished that, v. 7, '• the priesthood being
changed, there is of necessity a change in the law "' whereas this
performance argues that the new priesthood must subject itself
to the ritual of^the old law. Fine reasoning truly.
But again, to make it appear that our Lord received this con-
secration to the priesthool, it must be assumed that John was
performing on men, at Bethabara, the iitual ot the Mosaic law
Xow I read of the consecration both of priests and J^evites, Ex«
29:4, Num. 8:5—13, that it took place at the door of the taber-
nacle, if there were any consecration other than this general one.
fhey were to wash and 8have au'i otfjr sacrifices, and robe, and
i'^i
24
all this to be repeated for seven days, while the candidaies
remained secluded in the holy solemnity of the sanctuary. And
yet Mr. McK, and others, in order to bring in their beloved
sprinkling, and rule out the hated immersion, do not hesitate lo
declare the simple rite performed by John identical with thi.-<
X>rolonged ceremonial. To what audacity of assumption will not
men go, when they have no better reliance? Upon what depths
of Ignorance in their readers do they not reckon ?
THE BAPTISM OF THE EL'NUCH, ACTS S:3S, 39,
'l-.i*!;'?^ j^V
is a plain case of sprinkling in Mr. McKay's eyes. Hear him,
" If they (Baptists) will examine their Bibles they will see that
the eunuch was on this occasion reading in the 52nd and 53rd
chapters of Isaiah. And here it is predicted of Christ, among
other things, that ' He shall sprinkle many nations ' (a passage
which the best scholars, by the way, say should be rend:>red, * so
shall he cause many nations to ^xult ') and the eunuch seeing
water at once thinks he is one of tlmse he was ro s}>rink]e, ttc.
Very conclusive surelv, quite specious, at least, liiit we have
learned enough V>y tliis time to take nothing for granted because
it is roundly declared in this pamphlet, an 1 others of a similar
kind. Baptists do " examine their Bibles,' all the worse for such
performances. Let us turn to Acts 8:32, it is there said that the
eunuch was reading, " He was led as a lamb to the slaughter," &c.
not Isaiah 52: 1 5, but 53:7, Thus again the boasted proof is an
assertion contradicting the Bible. Under such circumstances it
is hard to receive in all meekness the reprimand which intro-
duces this piece of wresting of the scriptures, " Instead of ignor-
antly dwelling upon unusual or false translations to prove their
theory let me recommend immersionists to a better way, &c.'*
May we not say, in all humility, that we do not wi>h to follow
his wav.
25
e, itc.
e have
:>ecausf*
similar
or such
lat the
r," &c,
is an
nces it
intro-
ignor-
e their
, &c.'-
follow
THE BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT
is becoming the chief dependence of the advocates of afFut^ion.
Their argument appears quite plausible, on first sight. In this
baptism the spirit is represented as coming down upon the
baptized. The water baptism must conform to the spiritual
therefore in physical baptism the element must cohie down upon
the candidate, and the candidate not be put into the element,— '
baptism must be affusion, not immersion. Let us examine this
argument somewhat closely. / ' '
1, It assumes that there was a literal affusion of the spirit.
If the language — the spirit was poured out &o. — be figurative,
referring to the copiousness of the influence, and is said to
descend only because of the representation of the Divine abode
being above us, in heaven, then, as there can be no mode in the
spirits manner of reaching men, there can be nothing in it to
determine the mode of water baptism. Who can doubt as to
this? Cananvone, on sober thought, believe that there is a literal
material pouring out &c. of the Holy Sp'rit ? Is not the very men-
tion ofsuch an idea shocking ? Besides, do we not believe that
the spirit is omnipresent, aiid so does not require motion in any
direction to exert his energy on the soul? So this argument
crumbles away at the first touch. ' '
2, But allowing this gross material conception in the realm of
the purely spiritual, and still our opponents are not helped much
unless the " pouring out " &c, are called the baptism. But it is
not. Etren Robinson in his Lexicon, in the very article on baptizo
in which he makes a special plea for sprinkling, declares that
Matt. 3:11 should be "baptized in the Holy Ghost, 'and not "with
the Holy Ghost," as in our version, and all candid scholars agree
with him. Now, if we go to the record of the fulfilment of this
promise, Acts 2: 1—4, we find it in perfect agreement with the
meaning of the word baptizo, and the terms of the promise thus
T
rightly rendered. The audible accouapaniment of the spirit's
presence and power *' fills the house where they are sitting," and
*' they are filled with the Holy Ghost." Cyril, one of the ancient
Fathers writing about A.D. 350, Cat. 17 Sec. 8 puts it well in his
highly wrought way. " The house became the reservoir of the
spiritual water.) the disciples were sitting within -, and the whole
house was filled. They were therefore completely immersed,
according to the promise. We might quote Theophylact,
Neander, Moses .Stuart, Lange and others to the same effect, bui
we forbear.
3, Again still allowing the idea that there was a literal material
outpouring of the Spirit, it must further be established that water
baptism is to declare the mode of the Spirit's coming upon the
soul, before the fact of the Spirit's coming in a certain form will
stamp the same form on water baptism. But even on this
monstrous supposition, how could the manner of the Spirit's
coming require to have something in an ordinance, or an
ordinance itself to symbolize and show it forth ? Why should
Orod take such pains to keep men in mind that the Spirit descends
upon them and does not come in another way. The idea is
simply unthinkable, and no one could have perpetrated such an
argument as this, unless forced by the exigency of a preconceived
4, Finally the true symbolism of baptism destroys this argu-
ment completely. Mr. McK. is right whfn he asserts that it
symbolizes the Spirit's work of regeneration in the soul, although
he makes a statement which is incorrect when he says that
Baptists do not believe this, since they are the only people who
hold this view consistently ; for in infant baptism this cannot be
the symbolism, unless baptism first regenerates. Well then, if
baptism symbolizes the work of the Spirit in the soul and this is
undoubted, how can he make it show forth the mode of the Spirits
coming wptm the soul.
But
oiakes
1 : 32, "
dove."
Vets 1
would I
prevent
So t
:uonstr(
materia
the Spi:
deep ar
a work
absurdi
one of i
We
In tl
he reac
pleader
fies the
baptisn
of such
thus pr
second ,
0:18 to,
sprinkli
sprinkli
passage
necessi^
else wa
punfica
;he spirit's
tting," and
be ancient
well in hiti
oir of the
the .vhole
immersed,
eophylact,
effect, but
i1 material
that water
upon the
I form will
m on this
ie Spirit's
ce, or an
'hy should
t descends
ie idea is
3d such an
scoDceived
this argu-
ts that it
, although
says that
•eople who
cannot be
II then J if
smd this is
he Spirits
But the idea that the dsncent of the Spirit is the baptism
naakes the most arrant nonsense when applied to the passages, Jn.
I ; 32, would re«*d, " I saw the Spirit baptizing from heaven, like a
dove." Acts 2 : 17, " J will baptize of my Spirit upon all flesh.''
Acts 2 : 33, '• He has baptized this which ye now see <fec," which
would make it appear that the element is the object baptized, and
prevent the baptism of the people altogether.
8o this boavSted argument is found to be based upon such
:uonstrou.s assumptions as that the Spirit is poured out in a
material way, — that water baptism is to show forth the mode of
the Spirits descent. JSco., thus emasculating from baptism all its
deep and blessed import, — thus denying that it is a profession of
a work of f»raoe in the soul, — and reducing referencee to it to an
absurdity. Verily a practice is well supported which has this as
one of its strongest arguments. ,,„|. ,. ., v,^ ' l/wi ■■ ^rt v>^
We come now to the ; Jir" -; .«'>'^f:.-.;"
L-iil.
DIVKRS nAITISSIS HRB. 9
r:n U'mU t%S
In these Mr. McKay sees nothing but sprinklings. How does
he reach this conclusion? Just as a number of other special
pleaders have done. He boldly assumes that the apostle identi-
fies the .sprinklings mentioned in vs. 13. 19.21, with these divers
baptisms of v. 10, whereas the apostle gives not thv<» remotest hint
of such a thing. Let the reader examine for himself. Having
thus proved his first step by assuming it, he establishes the
second in the san * way. Having quoted Lev. 19:13:20 and Heb,
0:13 to show that the essence oF the purification was in the
sprinkling, he then asserts that '' God's word says that the
sprinkling constituted the baptism." The most that these
passages prove is that, in the cases specified, sprinkling was
necessary to the purification. But it does not say that nothing
else was essential to even these purifications, much less that all
purifications were sprinklings. As well might we reason, because
k
ii
r !i
one man died because he had not his leg amputated that all men
will also die unless they have theirs cut oflf. Two more assumpt-
ions are needed, viz., that only purifications belong to these divers
baptisms, and that only sprinklings are purifications, before he
can prove that these baptisms were^not immersions. As they
are needed, he makes them, and calls this proof I !
But although this argu^lent on careful dissection, resolves
itself into a series of bald assumptions, it is frequently used ana
is well fitted to impose on the careless — especially on those who
are predisposed to accept it. We therefore propose to give it as
exhaustive an examination as our space will permit. ;
Let us first examine the passage itself to find its true
meaning. :' '
First : the " divers baptisms " are called carnal ordinances,
for the " and " of the clause, " divers baptisms and carnal ordi-
nances," is without MSS. authority as all scholars admit. So the
divers baptisms are restricted to such rites as pertain to men and
to their outward persons, for " carnal " means " of the flesh."
Second: the ordinances here referred to were to continue
until the time of reformation — viz : until Christ should come.
No rite then which did not continue to be observed until the end
of the old economy can be included in these baptisms.
Bearing these two facts in mind, let us turn to the Old
Testament and question H as to the forms of personal purification
which these baptisms may include. There are but five cases of
personal sprinkling. At the ratification of the covenant, Ex. 24
18, — at the consecration of Aaron and his sons, Ex. 29:21. Lev. 8
30, — of the Levites, Num. 8:7, — at the cleansing of lepers. Lev. 14
7j_of those defiled by contact with death. Num. 19:13—21. But
the sprinkling of blood at the ratification of the covenant was
never to be repeated. Neither was that of the water and ashes
at the consecration of the Levites ; for it was a consecration of
the whole tribe, once for all. Neither, probably, was that of the
pi-
th
thi
we
spi
anj
ha
mil
lei
the
the
use
the
be
the
29
at all men
! assumpt-
ese divers
before he
As they
, resolves
used ana
those who
give it as
I its true
dinancesi
irnal ordi-
L. So the
» men and
esh."
continue
lid come.
1 the end
the Old
rification
cases of
, Ex. 24:
. Ley. 8:
Lev. 14:
1. But
lant was
id ashes
>ation of
,t of the
priestly caste; tor it was ol the whole priestly class, through
their haads (see Smith's Bib. Die. art. Priest.) These sprinklings
then could not be referred to in the divers baptisms ; for they
were not to continue until the time of reformation. Only two
sprinklings remain then, which even might thus be referred to
and one of these — that of the leper — probably did not occur per
haps once in a generation, if it did so often ; for it was next to a
miracle for a leper to be healed, and the rite was not to cure
lepers, but to celebrate their healing. There was practically,
then, but one sprinkling, of any frequency of recurrence, to which
these baptisms could refer and is it likely that the apostle would
use Ihe word " divers," did he refer to these sprinklings when
there were only two cures, and one of these so unfrequent as to
be scarcely worthy of notice. So much for the probability that
the " diyers baptisms " refer to sprinklings.
But were there any other personal purifications to which they
might refer ? Yes, verily, although those who seek to have the
reader see sprinkling through the '' divers baptisms " very pru-
dently strive to keep them hidden. There are 40 specified cases
where the clothes are to be washed, and 30 where the whole body
of individuals is to be bathed or washed. So much care is taken
to conceal these facts that we give the most of the passages so
that the reader can see that they really exist.
Washing of clothes. Leyiticus, 11: 25, 28, 40. Leviticus, 13 : 6,
34, 54. Lev. 14 : 8, 9, 47. Lev. 15 : 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 21, 22, 27.
Lev. 16 : 26, 28. Lev. 19 : 16. Num. 8 : 7. Num. 19 : 7, 10, 19.
Num. 31 : 24
Washing oj the whole body. Lev. 14 : 8, 9. Lev. 15 : 5, 6, 7, 8,
10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 27. Lev. 16 : 4, 24, 26, 28. Lev. 17 : 15.
Lev. 22: 6. Num. 19:7, 8,19.
In addition to these there are bathings of the hands and feet.
But were these bathings immersions ? When we consider the
scrupulous exactness of the Jews in conforming to the ritual of
so
; !
the law. and tuke into connection with this the fact that
immersion of the body in water is the common eastern mode of
taking a bath; can we doubt that those bathings were equivalent
to immersions, if they were not immersions. But we have other
evidence.
Maimonides, the greatest and most learned of Jewish Rabbis,
and who ought to know the customs of his own people, says : —
'' Whenever, in the law, washing of the fle-ih or of oloihes i»
mentioned, it means nothing else then the dipping of the whole
body m water J for if any man wash himself all over except the
tip of his little finger, he is still in his uncleaness. Hilch.
Micooat. 1 : 2. Dean Stanley says in his article on baptism, and
from his life long researches in the history of the Jewish people,
he should be an authority, ^' The plunge into the bath of
purification, long known among the Jewish nation as a symbol of
a change of life, wat* still continued, (in baptism)/'
Let us sum up, on the one hand there are about fifty distinct
cases of washing and bathmg which were, if not actuaj
immersions, yet equivalent to immersions. The^iQ immersions
were of frequent repetition aa^ong the most of the people until
the end of life. On the other hand there is but one case of
sprinkling of general and continuous use. The question then
is, shall we suppose that the apostle designates this one case of
sprinkling with the extraordinary case of the leper, " divers "
baptisms^ thus using a word to describe them which never meant
sprinkle in all its use, as all scholars admit. Or did he use this
word "divers " of the thirty or fifty cases of bathing and wstshlng,
and the word "baptisms" which always meant immersion of
these wastiings and bathings, which were at least equivalent to
immersions ? Did he use both the words with meanings which
they never bore, or did he use them in the sense they ever had ?
The reader can easily judge. And yet this is oae of the
Ktrongest arguments against us. The reader can also judge o^
SI
the learning of Mr. McKay, and the seemliness of his arrogant
question, ^' Do not imtnersionists know that every cleansing or
baptism under the law was by sprinkling ?"
Not only so, but unmixed water was never used in any Old
Testament sprinkling. The case of the Levites is no exception.
Whenever water is used in the Old Testament it is as a bathing—
at leagt the equivalent of immersion. If then John's baptism in
proved to be a legal purification by John 3 : 25, it is all the worse
for sprinkling; for his was the use of water only, and it must
therefore have been an immersion.
Our author makes the usual point of the shallow critics about
the
BAPTISM IX THB CLOUD AND IN TUB SEA, 1 COR. 10 : 2.
" A man cannot be dipped or immersed on dry ground," he
exclaims. Surely he is not so dull as to believe that there can
be no immersion except in water, or any except a literal. The
Israelites were surrounded by the sea and cloud, so as to be
completely enveloped in them, just as in baptism one is envel-
oped in the water. So far is this passage from doing duty against
the Baptist view that Dr. SchaS in the quotation already made,
gives the " comparison of baptism with the passage through the
Red Sea," as a proof that scripture baptism was an immersion.
Lange says '' The cloud is, in a measure, taken together with the
water, as the element into which they entered, and wherein they
became as it were submerged.''^ Had we space, we could quote
Poole, Bengel, Whitby, Olshausen, Alford, Bloomfield, Moses
Stuart, &c., to the same effect. Need we say more on this point ?
His criticism on the washing (baptism) before meals, Luke 11 :
37, 38., is wonderful. He assumes roundly that the baptism of
himself yihxch. the Pharisees expected of our Lord was a washing
of the hands. He then assumes, because he finds two cases of
washing the hands by pouring water on them, hundreds of ycftrs
//
i
82
before, that this was the invanaljlo pracLica an! so our Lord must
have been expected to baptize hiintel/, by having some water
poured upon hii hinds ! And so the exclusive immersion tlieory
is but the baseless fabric of a dr<^a'n. .Surely immeraionisU are
for ever demolished !
th;': KviTisM ok vi;s^i:ls avd tabi.ks, maiik 7 : 4,
receives a share of attention. Ifo assumes, as is generally done'
thai the rites here alluded to were all necessarily parts of the
Mosaic ritual, and that the baptisms were therefore sprinklings.
Now was he so hlin I as to fail to see that they are expressly said
to belong to the traditions of the elders v. o., against which our
law proceeds to speak, v 7, 8 ? This is just the point. The elders
had gone beyond the law and hail imposed grievous and oner-
ous observances on the people. What wise criticism then, to
allege that tho?e traditional observances which had made the law
of none effect, were the very re(|uirements of this law itself! ! So
much for Mr. McK. Pedo baptist i eaders who have been accus-
tomed to hear this passage held up as utterly inconsistent with
the Baptist position will be surprised to know the little real
diflf^lculty it presents The following will suffice to make this
[>lain ;
Maimonides, the great .levvish Rabbi already referred to, says,
•' Every vessel of wood which is made for the use of man, as a
table, tkc , receives defilement," and he adds, further on, " A bed
that is wholly defiled, if be dip it part by part, it is pure. Hilch,
'.'elim, Dr. Holley, a Congregationalist, in his great work on the
.^acraments says : —
'* [ cannot rely so confidently upon these baptisms of furniture
as do many of my brethi en. * •' If any one will take the trouble
to study the various pollutions of beds and couches, as they are
described by Maimonides and the Talmudic tracts, tney must in
candor admit that these articles of furniture were, in some
inst
beef
con I
prei
del
of tl
33
instances, immerse<l in water." '' I cannot deny that the Phari
bees as early as the time of our Saviour practiced immersion after
contact with the common people."
But alas ! some men have not the knowledge or the candor to
prevent them denying this, and so they act as though they had
demolished our position ; while they have only made an exposure
of their own ignorance.
The critical note on v. 4 of th.j passage is a cariosity, instead
of the Vatican, the sinaitic and seven other MSS, having ranti-
aontai in this verse instead of baptisoatai. Alford and Tregelles
give only the Vatican and one obscure MSS. as having ran//«on^at*
(sprinkle). Mr. McK. states that because some MSS. thus give
sprinkle and some baptize, sprinkle and baptize must be synony-
mous ! ! Let us apply this newest canon to a case. In Jas. 2:18,
some MS.S have '' by thy works,' others " without thy works." Mr.
McK. then, must believe thai to be justiiied by works, and with-
out works, are synonymous and equivalent. How easy it would
be for him to bridge over the chasm between Calvinism and
Arminianism !
The old objection that there was a scarcity of water in Jeru-
salem to immerse the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost is brought
forward again as though it had not been answered times without
numl^er. We answer it again, the facts are taken from Dr.
Kobinsin's Kesearches in Palestine, vol. 1, p. 480-515. Dr. R.
was a staunch Pedo baptist. Jerusalem was watered by the
following pools with the dimensions given below : —
Length Breadth Depth
75 feet
19 "
18 "
partly filled '
40 feet
'' But in addition to these " contmues Dr. R. " almost every
private house in Jerusalem of any size, is understood to have at
Bethesda,
360
130
Siloam,
53
18
Upper Pool,
316
218
Hecekiah,
240
144
Lower Pool,
592
260
7f
Depth
12 feet
15 "
15 "
20 '•
34
east cftio or more cisterns. The house of Mr. Lanneau, in which
we resided, had no less than four cisterns, and as these are but a
specimen of the manner in which all the better class of houses
are supplied. I subjoin here the dimensons."
Length Breadth *
I 15 8
II 8 4
III 10 10
IV 30 • n^ 30
1.1
ThesA public reservoirs were available. Dean Stanley who
"^trAvelled in the East sa3's : "In that early age the scene of the
transaction (baptism) was either or some vast reservoir,
as at Jericho or Jerusalem, whither as in the Baths of Caracalla at
Kome, the whole population resorted for swimming or washing ''
and Dr. Hackett, also an Eastern traveller, says : "'I'he habits
of the East, as every traveller knows, would present no obstacle
to such a use of the public reservoirs." Besides we know from
the New Testament that Siloam and Bethesda were so used ; for
our Lord .commanded the blind man to wash in the Pool of
Siloam, and the sick used to plunge into that of Bethesda, Jn.
9, 7, and 5 . 2. Neither would the populace have prevented
them ; for Acts 2 : 47. They were " in favor with all the people.''
So much foi- this objection. Ot course Saul was baptized stand.
ing, becau.se lie " arose and was baptized." Mr. McK. never
knew that the expression '' arise '' is eiiiiivalont to '• get ready '"
in the New Testament use, or, if lie did, it would spoil his point
to mention it here. There is no doubt about the matter but that
when Peter asks, Acts 10:47, "Can any man forbid wa»er " it
means can any forbi<l "its being brought into tiie room" If a
judge should sav, can any man forbid a gallows, that this mar) b»'
hanged, it would mean that a gallows be brought into the court
room and the man hanged there ! ! The baptism oT the Jailer i><
not said to be \n f/wjail, Acts IG : 32, 34, " They spake v. 32 to all
that were in bis house, -these " were bfiiitiz-^"!, ^ v. 33. then the
ion,
i I
35
n which
MB but a
if houses
'eet
nley who
ne of the
ipservoir,
racalla at
.vashing '"
lie habits
) obstacle
now from
used ; for
e Pool of
les^la, Jn.
)revente(l
» people.*'
erl staii'l-
V. never
t reurly '"
lis point
hut that
fii*ev ■' it
If a
luarf bt'
lie court
Jailer i^
. :^2toall
then the
n
jailer " brought them into his house," v. 34. They were in the
house before baptism, they came back into it after baptism, and
thus must have gone out to be b:iptized. So much tor these
cases which ai-e thought inconsistent with immersion.
As to the '' much water " of Jn 3 : 23, it we admit that it is
literally " many waters," it will no less signify a large supply,
according to New Testament usage. Let the reader turn to Rev.
1 : 15, 14 : 2, 17 : 1, 19 : G, the only other instances of its use there*
in, and judge for himself. The Bible does not say that John
chose Enon that there might be water for the animals, or to
enable him and our I^rd to be near each other and not interfere.
It merely says that John was Imptiziiuj there because of its much
water or many w.it rs. Although we hear of multitudes thronging
our Ixjrd in the - i and elsewhere, there is no mention of suf-
fering from thirst. Our Ix)rd had never to work a miracle to sup-
ply them with water, as he did to furnish them bread A very
small spring would bo enough to afford water for thousands. So
we had better not add to the scripture narrative any suppositions
of our own. Jn. Calvin who says, Com, " From these words, Jn.
o : 23, it may be inferred that baptism was administered by John
and Christ by plunging the whole body under water," and Olshau-
sen who declares that '' John was also baptizing in the neighbor*
hood, because the water there affbrded convenience for immers-
ion," and other Pedobaptist scholars we might name, are against
Mr. McK. ; but these I suppose are among the ignorant people
who •'* know nothing about dipping."
The time worn objection that John could not have immersed
"all Judoa and Jerusalem, <*:c," is made to do duty again. The
most Pedo-baptist writers vho urge this, cannot feel justified in
making the whole population of the district more than two or
three millions, but Mr. McK makes it^t'e. In reply we remark :
1, Baptism by immersion can be administered as rapidly as by
sprinkling, especially if we remember that the most ancient
d'4
•a
-fV
manner was by the candidate going deep into or kneeling in the
water and the administrator putting his hand on his head and
howing it under the water, 2, We »re not told that Johi alone
baptized. His disciples may have assisted him. The expression
' baptized of John '' being similar to^ " the ark was built by
Noah. ' 3, Let the reader turn to Lu. 7 : 30. Mlatt 21 : 25 Jn 4 : 1 ,
1:11, 3:23, and ho will see that Matt 3:5 cannot mean that all the
people without exception were baptized of John, even if it nieahs
that all without distinction were. It may mean no more than
John 12 : 32. " And if I be lifted up will draw all men unto me "
— that there went out to him many of all classes.
Does Mr. McK. not know that in the hot lr»nd of Palestine.
with the t lin clothing of the people, to be left with drippin;jr
garments is more of a luxury than an inconvenience? Dr. Page
Smith says " In Judea, during the larger part of the year, persona
n ordinary health might plunge into the water and sit down in
in their wet clothes with safety, and often with great comfort
and pleasure.
And now we come to what is called
i*n
" THE BURlAf. THEORY."
1 , Mr McKay holds that in Rom. 6:3, " Buried with 'him fcy
baptism,' the burial is the result of the baptism, and is not the
baptism itself, and as the spade which buries is not the burial,
therefore here the baptism is not the burial. He has forgotten,
however, that on p. 27 he declares that Dr. Dale has proved be-
yond a question that the baptism is not act but an effect, nOw he
says, in order to serve his present purpose, that baptism is hot
effect but means. He abounds in points against us. First, we
are demolished because a thing is so, and then again because
that very thing is not so. But whichever way he chooses to oiake
his point, it is useless here : for if the burial is the result of the
baptism, it is a burial which is the result, and that is what is al-
g in t1i<^
lead and
iii alone
pre's^ion
built by
Jn4:l,
,t all the
it means
»re than
nto me "
alestine.
(Irippin;,:
Dr. Page
, persons
, down in
comfort
him by
not the
|e burial,
(rgotten,
►ved be-
I, now he
IS hot
'irst, we
because
I to make
It of the
lat is al*
3T
ways elfected by immersion, and what is never secured by either
sprinkling or pouring. Besides in Col. 2: 12 it is "byried with
liim 77} baptism," not by. Therefore here it is plainly stated that
th^re is the baptism in the burial.
2, We believe that water baptism as well was the spiritual, if
not water baptism and not the spiritual is here referred to. Of
course we must remember that by a well known figure baptism is
f^aid to eff\*ct what it only symbolizes. Paul is arguing that the
members of the church in Rome are all dead in sin, and that there-
fore the taunt that unconditional justification would lead to sin,
cannot be true. To prore this he refers them to the fact that in
their baptism mto Christ they were baptized into his death.
Then to make it plain that in their baptism into Christ they were
thus baptized into his death, he refers them to the form of their
baptism— a burial — wbich was to show forth this very fact, and
savs, " therefore— for this very purpose— we are buried," Ac.
Besides, in v. 5 it reads, " For if we have been planted together
(grown together, literally) ir\ the likeness of his death,^* Ac. Here
baptism is called the likeness ot the Saviour's death, referring
to its representation as a burial in the preceding verse. Now
spiritual baptism could not possibly be called a likeness-r-a repre-
sentation—of the Saviour's death. It must be something visible
to which he refers, and this visible likeness to the Saviour's death
described as a burial must be immersion. It can by no manner
of twisting be made a sprinkling or a pouring. Conybeare and
Howson in Life and Epis, of St. Paul hfsve expressed the idea of
this verse as follows, " LiterAlly have become partakers of a vital
union of the representation of his death {in baptism.) The mean-
ing appears to be, if we have shared the re. Mty of His death,
Whereof we have undergone the likeness.*' Well therefore mny
'they say, " This passage cannot be understood unless it be borne
in mind that the pnmrtive baptism was by immersion."
3, But allow these passages, Rom. 6 : 4, 5 and Col. 2 : 12, to
T
3$
refer to spiritual baptism, and it points to immersion as the
literal baptism all the same. Why, on this supposition, is the
spiritual baptism called a burial ? It cannot be because there is
any actual burial m what is spiritual, for this is an absurdity.
Can it be for any other reason than that the water baptism is a
burial, and that the spiritual is, in a figurative way, described
through the material fact which represents it? If the water
baptism had been a sprinkling, can we imagine the apostle saying
buried with him by baptism viz., in that case— by sprinkling ?
Well therefore may Bp. Headley B&y thnmmj jj<ij tim*nmij <m^
''If Baptism had been then performed a.s ft is nov/ among us
(by sprinkling) we should never have so much as heard of such
form of expression, of dying and rising again in this rite.''
Besides, what a somersault this new ground requires our
Pedo- baptists friends to make? To bring in affusion, their great
argument is that the spirit is said to be affu.sed, and that the
water baptism is to be affused also, because it must conform to
the representation of the Spirit's baptism. Whereas, now, to
get rid of burial by baptism they declare that this refers to the
Spirit's baptism, but that the water baptism need not conform to
the representation of the spiritual. How convenient ! If thev
would only notice that the effects of the Spirit on the soul, and
not the mode ! of the Spirit's coming is called a baptism, then
there would not be this apparent conflict between the repre-
sentations of the St;iritual baptism, which requires them to con-
tradict themselves point blank.
4, The history of the interpretation of this passage throws
much light upon its moaning.
The early Fathers beginnmg with T^rtullian who was born
about 150 A.D. and including Basil, Cyril Chrysostom, Gregory
Nazienzen, Ambrose, John of Damascus, Theophylact &c. all
int^'^pret this passage as referring to water baptism by immersion.
And sOj do all modern scholars, so far as I can learn, until Moses
39
throws
born
regory
DC. all
irsion.
[oses
Stuart, including such names as Luther, Zuingle. Wesley,
Whitfield, Baxter, A. Clark, Chalmers, Bloomfield, Conybeare?
Meyer, and a host of others. Since M. Stuart's attempt to
explain Rom. 6 : 4,5, so as not necessarily to include a reference
to immersion, but few have bad the hardihood to follow him.
Until there was need then of a different interpretation to serve
a controversial purpose in evading the force of the Baptist
argument, no one thought of explaining this passage except as
referring to baptism as immersion, and few have done so even
since. Who can fail to see the force of thea©. facts ?
5, Finally the true symbolism helps to the true interpretation
of this passage, and to the truth about the mode *of baptism.
Even Mr. McK. admits that baptism is to symbolize the work of
regeneration in the soul, and Rom. 6 : 4,5, and Col. 2: 12 prove
it. But how can we best represent that change by which old
things pass away and all things become new — by which the old
man is crucified, and the person becomes a new creature ? By
what stretch of the imagination can we see this shown forth in
sprinkling or pouring? ITow can we fail to see it vividly and
impressivf^Iv portrayed in the burial in the water — death to the
old — and rising out of the water — resurrection to the new?
Fn^itisn) is lepvesented again inEph 5 : 26, and Tit. 3 : 5 as a
l>ath or bathing— the word used in thf original referring to a
bathing of the whole body. But how the whole body could be
sjiid to be !)athed b}' baptism, if baptisnf t\'er^ f\ sprinkling or a
pouring 1 fin.l not, but in immersion I see such a bathing. o«g«3
, ' t do not purpose to follow Mr. McK.. and those from whom he
borrows, throujrli all their remarks about the '^^^ ^"^ '^'^^v^>
'i\ ', .ui,^.;^ j^;u W <^^.ti-r »» a; '^-JiiJiU C^ »w'>ifi tO hap, <P0 '
' O'^ ** nOiS'; OREKK PRKPO^'lTTOXS. ' vdX am>
jou-w i.?iie ,v.i4«i', 'i)j ui,M
'vu4]vm ",if>ie'i
A'greatdeftl of dust can be thrown into the eyes of the un-
Biiokrlv reader, which it is almost imijossible to remove. The
40
re«wrk8 a^jt "into the mountain '* not oaeaning under its sur-
face, and so "into tlie water '* not signifying under the surface of
the water may be answered by those who think them worth the
trouble The attempt to make it appear that in the account of
John's baptism " Jordan " and even the " river of Jordan " does
not mean the river of Jordan at all has overlooked one fact. In
Mark ] : 9 our Lord is said to be baptized eis ion Jordaneii into the
Jordan. Now no sleight of hand with the preposition eis intOy
here, can make sense, if we regard ** Jordan " as a place and not
the river. Allow that eis m<»ans to, or up to or unloy and it be
comes "and was baptized of John to up to, or tin^o, the land of
Jordan," which is nonsense. Neither will any dexterity with the
preposition avail here when we admit that " Jordan " means "the
river of Jordan " as v 5 says. Take <o, and up tOy and untOy as
meanings of eis in this passage in this case and there is nonsense
again, "and was baptized of John tOyup to, unto the Jordan (the
river)." Still more absurd would it appear should we insert
sprinkle for baptize, as Pedo-baptists would have it, " and was
sprinkled of John toy up to, unto the Jordan." Take, on the other
hand the meaning for which Baptist contend. '' and was immersed
of John into the Jordan," and it is plain and clear. It utterly
refuses to be made to serve any other sense.
Again this preposition eiSy in the Gospels and Acts, is tran-
slated " into " 455 times and " to " only 155 times. But even in
the compararively few times in which it is rendered " to " it
means into — for it is used of going " to " a city or place into
which the one who went entered. The preposition en in the
Gospels and Acts is translated " in " 920 times, and " with " only
29 times, and of these 29 times it refers 11 times to baptism. The
reader can thus judge whether eisjin the expression " going down
eis the water," means " to " or " into " the water, and whether en
in the expressions " baptized en the Jordan '' or " baptiied en the
water " or " baptized en the Holy Spirit" means " in " the Jordan,
41
bran-
m in
" it
linto
the
)nly
[The
lown
iT en
the
lao,
'• in " the water, " in " the Spirit, or " with " the Jordan, water,
Spirit. That the preposition ek has " out of '' for its meaning can
be seen by any who knows the fact that there are two Greek
words to express the two ideas " from " and " out of." When
" from " in distinction to ^* out of " is to be expressed, then apo is
used, but when "out of in distinction to ''from," then ek is
used. The fact then that ek is used of baptism as well as apo,
proves beyond a doubt that the candidates came up " out of " the
water. The one case when apo is used in Matthew's descripticn
of the baptism of our Lord, is probably due to the fact that apo
designates the point at which the Spiiit descended and as he was
gomg up " from " the water. But in Marks account it is ek that
is used, and so our Lord must have been into the water.
If Mr. McK had been more careful in his remarks about this
preposition he would have reduced his point three quarters
nearly. Instead of ek b<^ing translated "out of" only Jive times
in the Acts, it is so translated eighteen times. It is true that it is
usually translated " from," but in these cases it conveys the
sense "out of " as an instance or two will show, Acts 2: 2 " from
heav3n '" Acts 3 : 16 •' from the dead." Acts 18 : 1,2, from Rome,
from Athens, <fec., do not mean from the outside of heaven, the
realm of the dead, Rome and Athens, but from within— om^ of.
Neither are the cases cited by Mr. McKay exceptions. Rom
1 : 17. The righteousness of God is revealed out of faith — faith is
its subjective force. Matt 12:23. The fruit of the tree is the
source out of which is our knowledge of it. Jn. 10 : 32. The good
works of Christ had their source in God.
To sum up the argument from the prepositions then. If
sprinkling or pouring were the original baptism, then they were
used in a very extraordinary sense ; whereas, if baptism were an
immersion, they had their most common meaning. This is not
denied by any one who has a reputation for scholarship worth
keeping. The most that is claimed by Pedo-baptists is that the
42
prepositions do not necessarily exclude sprinkling and include
immersion. But the circumstances make it almost imposaiblo to
conceive that baptism was by sprinkling. Why, on this suppo-
sition, were places chosen for baptism where there was much
water, or many v.'aters, or at the Jordan river. Why unless they
went into the water should they take the trouble to go down to
It? Why unless to immerse did they go into it, both baptiaer
and baptized, and incur, according to our opponents, all the fear-
ful danger of cold and the inconvenience of wet clothing for
nothing? On the supposition that baptism was an immersion,
however, all is consistent. They resort to the plentiful waters
because they are needed, they go down both into the water, be-
cause the candidate was to be buried therein and the baptizer
was to bury him. From the prepositions and the circumstances,
then, there is another strong presumptive argument for the
Baptist view, although we do not regard it as demonstrable.
SUMMARY.
Thus we have striven to meet objections to immersion fairly.
The reader must judge whether they have not been met sufficient-
ly—nay, whether the most have not proved arguments for us,
scarcely disguised. In every case but one or two, we have referred
the reader to the passages of the author where our quotations
may be found, so that tney can verily for themselves. In the
course of the discussion, also, the following facts, among others
have been made apparent.
In the assumption that immersion was the baptism practiced
by Christ and the apostles, all is clear and consistent.
The Greek word haptizo is taken in the sense in which the
people used and undei stood it — in the sense in which the Greeks
of to-day, and the church of which they form a part, use and
understand it — instead of having forced upon it a meaning not
only totally foreign to it, but also that of another common word
43
liced
the
ieks
and
not
rord
in the language, thus doubly confusing and misleading the people
The references to baptism in the New Testament are simple and
easily understood, requiring no departure from the ordinary use
of language. ' In ' is not required to be changed to * at ' * with '
»&c., nor ' into to ' to ' &c., nor • out of ' to * from. ' Neither do we
have to advocate the absurd idea of a washing or bathing of the
whole body by sprinkling a few drops of water on the face, nor
are we required to say that the application of these drops is a
burial, as baptism is declared to be. As would be expected on
the supposition that the baptism of the apostles was an immers-
ion, we hnd the writers of the first and second and succeeding
centuries declare it to be such, and when sprinkling and pouring
are introduced we find them regarded as only permitted as bap-
tism when immersion could not be administered, and even in
this case they were regarded as insufficient to qualify for offices
in the church, while sprinkling only gained an equality with im-
mersion through the Pope of Rome, by whom also the Virgin
Mary is put upon an equality with the Son of God, and this only
after thirteen centuries.
On the supposition, however, that spiinkling was the baptism
of the New Testament we have to face the following absurdities :
1st. Our Lord chose the word in GreeK which always meant to
immerse, and never to sprinkle to designate the act of sprinkling,
instead of taking the word rantizo which ever meant to sprinkle.
Thus our Lord made it necessary for all who spoke of the chris-
tian ordinance to explain that baptizo in reference to it, did not
mean baptizo but rantizo, and whenever there was no one to make
this explanation ; the people were most surely deluded. 2nd.
In the New Testament reference to baptism, in addition to un-
natural uses of prepositions, kc, and ftinciful explanations of the
need of much water for sprinkling a few drops upon each candi-
date, we must understand the Apostles to describe such sprink-
ling as a bathing of the whole body, Ephe. 5, 16, Titus 3, 5, a wash-
44
ing of tho whole body. Acts 22, 19, Heb. 10, 22, a burial, Rom. 6,
4, Col. 2, 12.
3rd, Although our Lord commanded sprinkling, and the
Apostles practised it, Barnabas and Hermes^ who were con-
temporary with the latter, refer to baptism in terms consistent
only with immersion, and Justin Martyr, who wrote withm forty
years of John and all the early fathers, in scores of references to
baptism, always describe it as an immersion, which it was not,
and never speak of it as a sprinkling, which it always was in
Apostolic times !
4th, Nay more, if sprinkling was the practice of the Apostles,
then within 1-JO or 200 yeai's after their time, so absolutely had
the knowledge of the practice faded from the mind of the church,
that when the original baptism by sprinkling was again adminis-
tered, 250 years from the birth of Christ, all the church looked
upon it as to be allowed only when immersion was impossible,
and even then as so inferior to immersion, that those who had
been sprinkled were disqualified for church otfices ! Will pedo-
baptists please explain how within such a short period the
practice of the Apostles could have been abandoned in the whole
church, and not only abandoned but entirely forgotten. What
led the church to wish the change ? As the chan>»e took place
and was forgotten in the space of three generations, what made
the change so sudden and general ? How did it happen that no
grandfather ever told of the old baptism to his grandchildren, or
no grandchild ever remembered it !
In view, then, of the fact that all lines of evidence agree in
requiring immersion, and that all lines agree in rejecting sprink-
ling and pouring, so that the assumption that they were practised
is attended by such absurdities as the above, the reader can
judge whether Mr. McKay's challenge to Baptists to produce a
single undoubted instance of immersion from the Bible needs any
further attention.
45
)e in
Irink-
Itised
can
ice a
lany
Neither let the reader suppose that the only question between
us and other denominations, as to the mode of baptism, is merely
one of more or less water. The real issue is on a principle which
has to do with adherence to all truth. It is this, shall we feel
ourselves bound to yield an exact obedience to the definite in-
structions of our Lord, thus avowing our belief that he had a
specific purpose to serve in the ordinance as he commanded it,
which cannot be so well served in any other way, or shall we
take the liberty to change what he has ordained, thus encourag-
ing a spirit of looseness and rashness, while we attribute to our
liord the folly of enjoining what is so immaterial that so distant
an approach as sprinkling is to immersion will do as well as that
which He commands, The nature of the issue can be seen in the
words of Jn.Calyin Institutes IV, XIX, " But whether the person
who is baptized be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once,
or whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no
importance. Churches ought to be left at liberty in this respect
to act according to the difference of countries. The very word
baptize, however, signifies to immerse, and it is certain that immers-
ion was the practice of the ancient church.'^ Baptists, on the con-
trary, hold that the form of baptism is adapted by divine wisdom
to serve the divine purpose, and that therefore neither Jn. Calvin
nor anyone else can tamper with it, or enjoin a different form,
without putting himself above Christ and in opposition to Him.
Finally, may we not urge upon the reader the duty of giving
to this question a calm and unbiassed consideration. To be on
the side of truth in all things is to be on the side of God in every-
thing ; for he is Truth. To be on the side of error in anything is
to be against him in something. We shall soon all be in our
graves, and any saving of self denial through wilfully or carelessly
remaining in partial error, will not serve us But the man who
has been willing to suffer even that God's truth in its wholeness
may have the devotion of his life, shall then have eternal honor.
Y/7
\
4S
And 80 we leave this work, to which we have devoted our last
few days in Ontario, in the hands of Ilim for whose truth an«l
glory it has been done. May he accept it, although so Izttlf fitted
to serve so high a purpose. May the Ix)rd forgive His Hf^rvant,
if, in the desire to tear the veil from the divine features of nacred
truth, he has used to ungentle a hand, or has, in the smallest
thing, wronged one of the Ijord's loved ones. And may He use
it aa He plea&e, in some small way.
r last
li an<l
fitted
'vant,
acred
alleet
e use
■i^-:;
■■^'<
.-> r
y ' >
iV'.v::.^,
^
"pwr
wt**
THE BAFnSM OF CHiaST.
THE BBPKBIiBNTATlOir W THB MOSAIC WOKR OV THB DOMB OF THE
; BAPTISTERY AT RAVRNNA.
The truth about this pieoe of art of whioh Mr McKay roakas
Buoh use, may be learned from the following quotations !-
Dr. Cote " Aroheeology of Baptigm.'
*< The mosaics of this baptistery hav&been repeatedly restored,
and well informed critics are of opinion that unwarrantable
additions and alterations have been made m this magniAoent
work by incompetent artists. These restorations have been
reu'lered necessary by the leaky condition of the cupola-^a
defect whioh, unfortunately still exists.
PaoiauduB, a Latin writer in his De Cultu S, Joannis Baptist^)
asks, in view of this mosaic work,
'< Was our Lord baptixed by aspersion ? This is so far from
being so that nothing can be moie contrary to the truth, but it
must he attributed to the error and ignorance of painters, who,
being often unacquainted with history, or believing they could
dare everything, sometimes greatly altered the subjects they
portrayed,"
The smallest of the fBtKFly fonts alluded to by J)r Bobinson in
his Lex art. baptiao^wi disproving immersion, was, according to
his own measurement, Bib. Kes I p. 7H, fow feet in diamMer on
ih6 iiiMde, and three /Get nine inchaa d^m. When the reader re-
members that this is the i^mallest of the fonts to wbict he alludes,
and that it was not probably erected until after infant baptism
had become general, he d^n ju^^S^ ^^ which side the evidence of
the early fonts lies. WhtV would think of having the smallei^i of
fonts of this sine to sprinkle infants? ft" is lar^e even to im
merse them. Mr. McKay,'s reproduction of this objootion ia
unfortunate. \
The fltatament that ^' Nd picture in the world earlier than ik^
16tb century represents our Lord au being bapiiied by dipping "
is aliuos^t the e^iact reverse of the truth, as can be seen fay th^
reallSr i^l^ffiienoe to Or. Ootes <> Archeology of Baptism.'
■^v
|
cihm_58382 | "Teachers and teaching [microform] : an address delivered before the Teachers' Association for the S(...TRUNCATED) | 1,877 | 17,623 | "IMAGE EVALUATION \nTEST TARGET (MT-3) \n\n\n:-••/•. \n\n\n«9- \n\n\n1.0 \n\n\nI.I \n\n\n1(...TRUNCATED) |
histoiredesducs02gugoog | Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne de la maison de Valois, 1364-1477 | 1,839 | 89,831 | "Google \n\n\n\nThis is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelv(...TRUNCATED) |
diarydrthomasca00cartgoog | The Diary of Dr. Thomas Cartwright, Bishop of Chester: Commencing at the Time of His Elevation ... | 1,843 | 44,249 | "Google \n\n\n\nThis is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelv(...TRUNCATED) |
dermatologischem20leipuoft | Dermatologische Monatsschrift | 1,882 | 249,585 | "i. - ■ ^ \n\nMONATSHEFTE vorian \n\n\nFOR \n\nPRAKTISCHE DEMATOLOGIE. \n\nUNTER M(...TRUNCATED) |
monthlyreposito15unkngoog | The monthly repository of theology and general literature | 1,806 | 628,984 | "This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelv(...TRUNCATED) |
bengalasafieldm01wyligoog | Bengal as a Field of Missions | 1,854 | 199,912 | "Google \n\n\n\nThis is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelv(...TRUNCATED) |
oeuvresducardina03retzuoft | "Oeuvres du cardinal de Retz. Nouv. éd., rev. sur les plus anciennes impressions et les autographes(...TRUNCATED) | 1,870 | 208,488 | "TO\\\\0H'\\0 \n\n\nLES \n\nGRANDS ECRIYAINS \n\nDE LA FRANCE \n\nNOUVELLES EDITIONS \n\nrL(...TRUNCATED) |
cihm_07746 | "The Hunt and Douglas process for extracting copper from its ores [microform] : with an appendix inc(...TRUNCATED) | 1,876 | 16,784 | "IMAGE EVALUATION \nTEST TARGET (MT-3) \n\n\n/. \n\n\n'k \n\n\n>\"a \n\n\n%° \n\n\nf ^ \n\n\n(...TRUNCATED) |
memoirschiefinc00trimgoog | "Memoirs of the chief incidents of the public life of Sir George Thomas Staunton, Bart., hon. D.C.L.(...TRUNCATED) | 1,856 | 44,292 | "\nThis is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it (...TRUNCATED) |
End of preview.